Westminster passed the Terrorism Act in 2000. This legislation lies at the heart of the UK government's "war on the abstract noun". The Terrorism Act introduced a wide definition of "terrorism". It defines terrorism in section 1. Terrorism is defined in this Act not just as acts against the government or the populace but also threats against the government where these threats would relate to violence against the person, damage to property, endangering life, or a serious risk to the health or safety of a section of the public. However, when you start to look closely at the wording of subsection (1) you see that it does not just cover threats to the government but threats "designed ot influence the government". Okay, you may say. The state should not be held to blackmail. But when we look at subsection (4) things start getting a little concerning. The threats can relate to matters outside the UK, the populace that is threatened can be a section of public from any county, not just the UK. And terrorism in the UK includes a threat against a foreign government (such as the former Iraqi administration?). Anyway, you may think this definition is not that worrying. After all it's about actions, about threats. And it may not seem unreasonable to criminalise those in the UK that are acting for the overthrow of foreign governments by force.
However, it does not end there, because as part of the regular need to be seen to be doing things in the war against abstract nouns earlier this year the UK Parliament passed the Terrorism At 2006.
The 2006 Act introduces a new offence (controversial during its progress thorugh Parliament but conveniently yesterday's fish and chip paper and consequently off the radar for UK subjects). This ACt includes under section 1 a new offence of "encouraging terrorism", which can be committed on-line and lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The 2006 Act, section 1 offence is broadly defined.
The key provision is subsection (1). It is an offence if there is "a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". So, do the public think a statement is an encouragement commit or prepare an "act of terrorism" (which we are told by section 20 is defined in accordance with s 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000)? Not every statement will make the position blatantly clear. Sometimes it is criminal if, through innuendo the public feel that a statement is indirectly encouraging terrorism. In assessing if a statement is to be understood as indirectly encouraging terrorism the section directs us to consider whether the statement glorifies terrorism, and the context of the publication is all.
Now, what has this to do with Alexander Litvinenko? Litvinenko's biography is now well known - a former Russian secret service agent who defected to the UK and criticised the Russian government. I do not wish to comment on Litivinenko as an individual, nor on the manner of his death; but it occurs to me that under the terms of UK terrorism legislation Litivinenko arguably fits within the definitions. He published regular articles criticising the Russian government and supporting the Chechen forces - those very same forces that are trying to remove the Russian government from the territory. His published articles on Putin (the head of a foreign government) made various unsavoury allegations about Putin (a quick Google search will confirm the nature of these) and called for his overthrow with "mother Russia" being revived.
Now, I may be missing something, but writing and publishing articles calling for the overthrow of a government - in at least part of its sovereign territory - and supporitg those that have used various means to persuade the Russians to leave seems to me to fall within the 2006 Act offence.
At the time the legislation was in Parliament it was pointed out that during apartheid SOuth Africa support for the ANC could potentially have been a s 1 of the 2006 ACt offence - given the stated aims and practice of the ANC in overthrowing the National Party government. MPs were assured this wasn't the case. Testing the legislation in one topical case suggests otherwise. So would Reagan type backing for Contra rebels have breached the 2006 Act? Or support for Kurds within Iraq or Turkey?
Our terrorism legislation is a mess. And fom the posturing before the Queen's Speech it looks like there is more to come.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
